Skip to comments.Court Won't Allow Challenge To Surveillance Law
Posted on 02/26/2013 9:54:14 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an attempt by U.S. citizens to challenge the expansion of a surveillance law used to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects.
With a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that a group of American lawyers, journalists and organizations can't sue to challenge the 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they can't prove that the government will monitor their conversations along with those of potential foreign terrorist and intelligence targets.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
IMHO, assed backwards.
What safeguards are guaranteed?? I’ll bet ZERO.
I guess we’ll just have to trust ‘ol gov’t.
Some stalwarts of the People we got there...
Agreed. The burden of proof should be on the government. The court should have requested the government to identify the safeguards in place to protect citizenry which should include some form of independent monitoring.
Looks like a ruling over standing, not the law itself.
From the same people who OKd ObamaCare.....the Supremicist Court
A big “bleep you” to the people.
You have no rights.....wake up people...
It is possible that the monitoring of the target's conversations with his or her attorney would provide grounds for a claim of standing on the part of the attorney. Such an attorney would certainly have a stronger evidentiary basis for establishing standing than do respondents in the present case.
While it seems so on its face, generally one cannot sue unless one demonstrates that harm/damage has occurred or such harm is imminent. Alito said in the majority opinion that this ruling is not intended to insulate the FISA expansion from judicial review. He essentially said, “Come back when you can prove that the government has intercepted your communications and we’ll hear the case.”
May God condemn those double-dealing watchmen and unjust judges, for supporting the whims of tyrants over the rights of the people.
The burden of proof is (and should be ) on the plaintiffs in our judicial system. But it is disconcerting that we have to wait until the government actually violates rights until the court will entertain arguments on the FISA expansion.
Actually, the robed gang uf thugs is really going to ensure more calls and communications are private. Now that they basically gave a wink and a nod to the government to listen in on whatever it wants, more people will start encrypting their calls, texts and emails. Apps are already spreading to do just that. Time to stick it to “the man.” If they want to listen in, make them Cray-Up and do the math for a few centuries to make any sense of what they get from you.
Just remember one thing..
the “Tyrants” that brought this to light and initially signed it into law was bushie and the pubs, who controlled both the house and senate at the time...
“From the same people who OKd ObamaCare.....the Supremicist Court”
Half right. It of course, came down to the LIB FACTION of the SC to ruin the country once again.
Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
The gubmint is free to listen to your phone calls and read your emails ...since these were not around at the time the 4th Amendment was incorporated. (wearing my leftard hat)
And apparently thats how The Regime reads it:
Justice Department Expands Hunt for Data on Cellphones
Obamas NSA eavesdropping goes beyond that of Bush... after campaigning on the promise of: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me!
NSA Exceeds Legal Limits In Eavesdropping Program , U.S. phone intercepts go beyond legal limits , and NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans.
Obama Supporters Think His Policies Are Crazy And Immoral When Attributed To Romney-
Warrantless Spying, Drone Wars, Kill Lists, Patriot Act On Steroids
FISA was originaly from 1978, amended in 2001, 2007, 2208 and 2012. Big mix of blame, not jus the pubs.
Actually these amendments were passed by the 110th Congress in 2008 when the Dems had control.
House - 233 (D), 198 (R)
Senate - 49 (D), 49 (R)
The House voted 293 - 129 for it. The Senate voted 69 - 28 for it. President Bush did sign it into law though.
Then the 112th Congress voted to extend the law for five years.
House - 242 (R), 193 (D)
Senate - 51(D), 47 (R)
House voted 301 - 118 for it; Senate voted 73 - 23 for it.
Thank you for the post and ping, Tex.
They had no standing. This isn’t a victory for big government, plus we’re naive to hope some judge will protect our rights. The burden of proof should be on the government and the American way is via legislation.
Let’s elect the right people. Why aren’t we pulling back to pre-9/11 security levels if we’re pulling back out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
In most civil matters, I'd agree. But when it comes to protecting civil rights from the government, I think the burden should shift. Especially in a case like this where large scale warrant-less clandestine spying can easily become "unreasonable search".
It's a reasonable expectation by citizenry that some safeguards be imposed, and the court should have recognized that expectation even if the legislature failed to.